JUDGMENT : GRIFFIN, J. The plaintiff, applicant in this Court, filed a suit recover Rs. 125 as damages from the defendants on the allegation the plaintiff got a decree for redemption of certain land on 13th of January 1911, that he deposited the amount due from 1 on the 13th of March that year but was not put in possession he property until the 29th November 1911. Apparently he sued recover the sum claimed as damages for the period between the posit of the money and the actual possession obtained by in to reimburse himself for being kept out of possession of the petty. The suit was filed in the court of Small Causes at Alla had. That court held that the suit was not cognizable by a court Small Causes in view of the provisions of article 31 of Schedule II of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The plaintiff applies in revision against the order of the court below dismissing the suit. Reliance was placed on a ruling of a Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Sahan Datt v. Sheikh Amrninuddy,[1910] 14 C.W.N., 1001. That ruling appears to support the contention advanced on behalf of the plaintiff that the suit was cognizable by a court of Small Causes. It was held there that a suit by a mortgagor against a mortgagee for mesne profits for the period during which the latter held wrongful possession of the mortgaged property was cognizable by a court of Small Causes. On a perusal of the judgment, however, I find that the learned judges who decided the case referred only to the first part of Article 31. The second part of that Article relates to “a suit for the profits of immoveable property belonging to the plaintiff which have been wrongfully received by the defendant.” Although the present suit is framed as a suit for damages it is undoubtedly one to recover from the defendants profits which they wrongfully realised from the plaintiff's property. In my opinion the view of the lower court that the suit is not cognizable by a court of Small Causes is right. A further contention on behalf of the applicant was that the court below was wrong in dismissing the suit in toto and that what that court should have done was to return the plaint for presentation to the proper court. A further contention on behalf of the applicant was that the court below was wrong in dismissing the suit in toto and that what that court should have done was to return the plaint for presentation to the proper court. Reference was made to Order 7, Rule 10, of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was urged on behalf of the opposite party that the only case in which a court of Small Causes can return a plaint for presentation to the court having jurisdiction is that set out in section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. No ruling was cited in support of the construction that the opposite party desired me to place on this section. It appears to me that this section should not be construed in this restricted sense. It sets out a special case in which a Court of Small Causes ought to hand back the plaint for presentation to the proper court. Under the circumstances it appears to me that the court below should have returned the plaint for presentation to the court having jurisdiction to entertain the suit. I allow this application so far that I set aside the order of the court below dismissing the suit in toto and in lieu thereof I direct that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the court having jurisdiction. The parties will pay their own costs.